Chapter XXVII.—The
Distinction of the Father and the Son, Thus Established, He Now Proves
the Distinction of the Two Natures, Which Were, Without Confusion,
United in the Person of the Son. The Subterfuges of Praxeas Thus
Exposed.

But why should I linger over matters which are so
evident, when I ought to be attacking points on which they seek to
obscure the plainest proof? For, confuted on all sides on the
distinction between the Father and the Son, which we maintain without
destroying their inseparable union—as (by the examples) of the
sun and the ray, and the fountain and the river—yet, by help of
(their conceit) an indivisible number, (with issues) of two and three,
they endeavour to interpret this distinction in a way which
shall nevertheless tally with their own opinions: so that, all in one
Person, they distinguish two, Father and Son, understanding the Son to
be flesh, that is man, that is Jesus; and the Father to be spirit, that
is God, that is Christ. Thus they, while contending that the Father and
the Son are one and the same, do in fact begin by dividing them rather
than uniting them. For if Jesus is one, and Christ is another, then the
Son will be different from the Father, because the Son is Jesus, and
the Father is Christ. Such a monarchy as this they learnt,
I suppose, in the school of Valentinus, making two—Jesus and
Christ. But this conception of theirs has been, in fact, already
confuted in what we have previously advanced, because the Word of God
or the Spirit of God is also called the power of the Highest, whom they
make the Father; whereas these relations81508150 Ipsæ.
are not themselves the same as He whose relations they are said to be,
but they proceed from Him and appertain to Him. However, another
refutation awaits them on this point of their heresy. See, say they, it
was announced by the angel: “Therefore that Holy Thing which
shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”81518151Luke i. 35. Therefore, (they argue,) as it was the flesh
that was born, it must be the flesh that is the Son of God. Nay, (I
answer,) this is spoken concerning the Spirit of God. For it was
certainly of the Holy Spirit that the virgin conceived; and that which
He conceived, she brought forth. That, therefore, had to be born which
was conceived and was to be brought forth; that is to say, the Spirit,
whose “name should be called Emmanuel which, being interpreted,
is, God with us.”81528152Matt. i. 23. Besides, the flesh
is not God, so that it could not have been said concerning it,
“That Holy Thing shall be called the Son of God,” but only
that Divine Being who was born in the flesh, of whom the psalm also
says, “Since God became man in the midst of it, and established
it by the will of the Father.”81538153 His version of
Ps. lxxxvii. 5. Now what
Divine Person was born in it? The Word, and the Spirit which became
incarnate with the Word by the will of the Father. The Word, therefore,
is incarnate; and this must be the point of our inquiry: How the Word
became flesh,—whether it was by having been transfigured, as it
were, in the flesh, or by having really clothed Himself in flesh.
Certainly it was by a real clothing of Himself in flesh. For the rest,
we must needs believe God to be unchangeable, and incapable of form, as
being eternal. But transfiguration is the destruction of that which
previously existed. For whatsoever is transfigured into some
other thing ceases to be that which it had been, and begins to be that
which it previously was not. God, however, neither ceases to be what He
was, nor can He be any other thing than what He is. The Word is God,
and “the Word of the Lord remaineth for ever,”—even
by holding on unchangeably in His own proper form. Now, if He admits
not of being transfigured, it must follow that He be understood in this
sense to have become flesh, when He comes to be in the flesh, and is
manifested, and is seen, and is handled by means of the flesh; since
all the other points likewise require to be thus understood. For if the
Word became flesh by a transfiguration and change of substance, it
follows at once that
Jesus must be a substance compounded of81548154 Ex.
two substances—of flesh and spirit,—a kind of mixture, like
electrum, composed of gold and silver; and it begins to be
neither gold (that is to say, spirit) nor silver (that is to say,
flesh),—the one being changed by the other, and a third substance
produced. Jesus, therefore, cannot at this rate be God for He has
ceased to be the Word, which was made flesh; nor can He be Man
incarnate for He is not properly flesh, and it was flesh which the Word
became. Being compounded, therefore, of both, He actually is neither;
He is rather some third substance, very different from either. But the
truth is, we find that He is expressly set forth as both God and Man;
the very psalm which we have quoted intimating (of the flesh), that
“God became Man in the midst of it, He therefore established it
by the will of the Father,”—certainly in all respects as
the Son of God and the Son of Man, being God and Man, differing no
doubt according to each substance in its own especial property,
inasmuch as the Word is nothing else but God, and the flesh nothing
else but Man. Thus does the apostle also teach respecting His two
substances, saying, “who was made of the seed of
David;”81558155Rom. i. 3. in which words He
will be Man and Son of Man. “Who was declared to be the Son
of God, according to the Spirit;”81568156Ver.
4. in
which words He will be God, and the Word—the Son of God. We see
plainly the twofold state, which is not confounded, but conjoined in
One Person—Jesus, God and Man. Concerning Christ, indeed, I defer
what I have to say.81578157 See next chapter. (I remark here),
that the property of each nature is so wholly preserved, that the
Spirit81588158 i.e., Christ’s
divine nature. on the one hand did
all things in Jesus suitable to Itself, such as miracles, and mighty
deeds, and wonders; and the Flesh, on the other hand, exhibited the
affections which belong to it. It was hungry under the devil’s
temptation, thirsty with the Samaritan woman, wept over Lazarus, was
troubled even unto death, and at last actually died. If, however, it
was only a tertium quid, some composite essence formed
out of the Two substances, like the electrum (which we
have mentioned), there would be no distinct proofs apparent of either
nature. But by a transfer of functions, the Spirit would have done
things to be done by the Flesh, and the Flesh such as are effected by
the Spirit; or else such things as are suited neither to the Flesh nor
to the Spirit, but confusedly of some third character. Nay more, on
this supposition, either the Word underwent death, or the flesh did not
die, if so be the Word was converted into flesh; because either the
flesh was immortal, or the Word was mortal. Forasmuch, however, as the
two substances acted distinctly, each in its own character, there
necessarily accrued to them severally their own operations, and their
own issues. Learn then, together with Nicodemus, that “that which
is born in the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is
Spirit.”81598159John iii. 6. Neither the flesh
becomes Spirit, nor the Spirit flesh. In one Person they no
doubt are well able to be co-existent. Of them Jesus
consists—Man, of the flesh; of the Spirit, God—and the
angel designated Him as “the Son of God,”81608160Luke i. 35. in respect of that nature, in which He was
Spirit, reserving for the flesh the appellation “Son of
Man.” In like manner, again, the apostle calls Him “the
Mediator between God and Men,”816181611 Tim. ii. 5. and so
affirmed His participation of both substances. Now, to end the matter,
will you, who interpret the Son of God to be flesh, be so good as to
show us what the Son of Man is? Will He then, I want to know, be the
Spirit? But you insist upon it that the Father Himself is the Spirit,
on the ground that “God is a Spirit,” just as if we did not
read also that there is “the Spirit of God;” in the same
manner as we find that as “the Word was God,” so also there
is “the Word of God.”